Muhammad Imran Cheema v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1174/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1174 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1.  Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 15 June 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against: (1) the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 5 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”); and (2) the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 27 September 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”).

2.The Director’s Decision had already been superseded by the Board’s Decision. The Director’s Decision is not susceptible to judicial review once appeal to the Board had been pursued (see Re: Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549, at §§31-45). Accordingly, in so far as the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review in relation to the Director’s Decision, the application fails in limine and is dismissed.

3.In the Form, the Applicant has named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and the proposed interested parties. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 21 July 2025. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form. Attempts were also made on 18 July 2025 and 21 July 2025 to contact the Applicant and remind him of the hearing by phone at the number provided by the Applicant on the Information Sheet and Form No. 8 but the number was found not to have been registered. The Applicant did not attend the hearing.

5.On 18 July 2025, the Court received an ex parte application by the Applicant by way of an affirmation affirmed on the same day. In the said affirmation, the Applicant stated that he wanted to withdraw the Leave Application and go back to his home country. He asked the court to close his case as soon as possible.

6.There is nothing to indicate that the Applicant did not make the application to withdraw the Leave Application out of his own free will. Accordingly, I accede to the Applicant’s request and dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).

Conclusion

7.In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 22^nd day of August 2025.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1